Friday, July 13, 2012

Lindsay Perigo: Eco-Fascism in NZ—Beginning of the End?


If the Green Party calls them "a major assault on the [Resource Management] Act and on sustainable development" then, sight unseen, I'm for them.

The advisory group set up by the government after the Canterbury earthquakes to examine quake-related issues relevant to the Act has apparently exceeded its brief in a most edifying way. It has proposed a significant rewrite of this singularly fascist legislation, under which property owners have been viciously persecuted and prosecuted for some 20 years now. It has recommended the removal of the mandate to local bodies to protect coastal areas, wetlands, lakes and rivers, and indigenous flora and fauna.

Section 6 of the Act currently instructs local authorities to recognise and provide for the protection or preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment, wetlands, lakes and rivers when considering RMA applications.They must also provide for the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes and areas of significant indigenous vegetation or wildlife.

The advisory group wants the terms "preservation" and "protection" dropped from S6 altogether.

Hallelujah!

Under this section, little Hitlers once hounded and fined a fellow $25,000 for turning a bog into a duck pond.

They have routinely prohibited farmers from developing large tracts of land because of some mangey tussock that's on them already.

They fined one Onehunga developer $100,000 for cutting down a single pohutukawa without permission.

They have effected a de facto nationalisation of land, rendering private ownership nominal and irrelevant.

They have been able to behave like the verminous wannabe-totalitarians that they are, and get away with it.

Now, the end of their micro-tyranny may be in sight.

Green Environment Spokesman, Eugenie Sage, says, "The proposal to drop the requirement for decision makers to provide for the preservation and protection of landscapes indigenous vegetation and habitats as matters of national importance ignores Environment Court case law built up over the last 20 years. Changing these fundamental parts of the RMA will cause unnecessary litigation and tilt the playing field heavily towards development.''

Let's hope!

What should also happen is for property rights to be sanctified in the Bill of Rights. That would cut any "unnecessary litigation" off at the pass—and represent a rare blow for freedom in this authoritarian backwater.

Ideally, the RMA would be dumped altogether, and the Common Law principle repaired to that you may do as you please on your property as long as you don't damage anyone else's.

For now, let us hope that the government will act on the advisory committee's recommendations. It's unlikely, however, that the National Socialists will have the will or guts to take on the Greens, who will be backed by Labour and the Apartheid Aotearoa Party. Today's news that the NatSocs have just assigned $1.5 million of taxpayers' money to new "environmental initiatives" doesn't bode well. Among the nauseating lowlights: "The Piha wetland restoration project receives $50,000 to restore a wetland area and create an outdoor classroom for Auckland's school students. Students will help the restoration by planting flax and native plants, while learning to identify and study the plants in the wetland."

Regardless, e-mail the Environment Minister, amy.adams@parliament.govt.nz, and/or her Press Secretary, nathan.beaumont@parliament.govt.nz

4 comments:

Ray said...

Lindsay. Generally I agree with your attitude to the moves on the RMA. I do think your mention of the Pohutukawa chopping developer in Onehunga was wrong though. In this case the land was purchased with full knowledge of the protected tree and that removal of it was unlikely to be allowed so the value of the land at purchase was dicsounted.
Instead of following the law he got several masked men with chainsaws to chop the tree down. In this case I would not have fined him I would have retained the restrictions as if the tree remained in place and forced him to put a new tree in place. Not because cutting trees should be made illegal but because he was effectively trying to 'steal' a gain in value in the land.

Eltalstro said...

'Among the nauseating lowlights: "The Piha wetland restoration project receives $50,000 to restore a wetland area and create an outdoor classroom for Auckland's school students. Students will help the restoration by planting flax and native plants, while learning to identify and study the plants in the wetland."' Lindsay's philosophy: "Education bad, development good! Grunt, grunt, ROAR!" Thankfully your political views are almost as popular as cancer and are shared by ageing property spivs and disgruntled developers who would like nothing better than to turn every seaside community into a gated version of the tasteless atrocity that is Papamoa.

Anonymous said...

Mark said to Ray....

that a single tree, and it's future life or otherwise, should affect the price of a piece of land shows just how bizarre the RMA is.

Anonymous said...

I say if you own the land, do what you like on it. You pay for the land, it's yours. As for these dictators that try to tell others what to do. They can kiss my backside.
That is why NZ is heading towards 3rd world, too many screw loose people with their noses in someone else's trough.